[Xylakant]

> What you say would only really be true if there weren't a portion of the population - even only a minority - who are, for want of a better word, massive dickheads (or simply very inattentive and situationally unaware).

Isn‘t the same statement true for car drivers? But the major difference is that a car turns a dickhead into a mortal danger for other drivers, pedestrians and cyclists alike, while a bike doesn‘t.

[ajmurmann]

I'd love to see fewer cars and more bicycles. That said, at least in the US and in SF in particular, I've encountered way more blatant violations off traffic laws by bicyclists. There were so many times I had to jump back from an intersection where I had a green light as a pedestrian because a bicyclist decided to race through at full speed. They probably thought it was safe, but I certainly felled endangered.

In the defense of bicyclists, I think a lot of this happens because the laws and roads aren't properly taking bicyclists into account. Stuff like bicycle lanes at the end of the block also becoming turn lanes for cars should just be unacceptable and provokes conflict between drivers and bicyclists.

[Karrot_Kream]

We're all primed to see conflicts more frequently when we use a mode more frequently. A lot of folks who don't bike only really encounter cyclists when they're pedestrians walking around, and so feel this fear then. In the US cyclists break rules at roughly a similar [1] rate to drivers according to an FDOT study. FWIW cyclists interact with drivers much more frequently which is why so many cyclists feel animosity toward drivers.

[1]: https://ntlrepository.blob.core.windows.net/lib/63000/63700/...

[dsfyu404ed]

>Isn‘t the same statement true for car drivers?

Yes. Completely.

Even before you get into discussions of selfishness/malice there are people who are just shitty at understanding how traffic works and how the different classes of traffic interact with each other. These people create problems wherever they go whether they go their on foot, two wheels or four.

In online discussions they're usually the ones screeching loudly about "rules" that get ignored contextually because they don't understand the context(s).

[bartread]

> Isn‘t the same statement true for car drivers?

In theory I agree with you, but in practice the behavioural differences are noticeable, at least in Cambridge.

One example (admittedly anecdata from somebody who spends a lot of time on the road using different modes of transport, including foot): lots of cyclists blow through red lights, (relatively speaking) very few car drivers do so. Of course, the stakes of a car driver blowing through a red light are arguably higher, so it's still not great.

What I'm contending against is not cycling as a mode of transport, but the assumption that with greater adoption of cycling comes greater safety. That's not what I see because of cultural issues (behaviour) surrouding cycling in this area. Possibly the accidents would be less severe, but there would still be plenty of accidents if everybody was cycling.

OTOH, and again it's small numbers/anecdata so take with a pinch of salt, but over 20 years in Cambridge I know more people who've been injured in cycling accidents that haven't involved motor vehicles, as those who've been injured in cycling accidents where motor vehicles have been involved. A couple of those people have blacked out even though wearing helmets because, e.g., their head hit the pavement. Causes of accidents are a bit of a mixed bag: road conditions aren't great around here (potholes, gravel on road, etc.)[0], one clipped by another cyclist on a cycle path (other cyclist didn't stop), etc.

I'm very pro-cycling but, as I say, from an empirical standpoint I'm not convinced it's necessarily that much safer. I'm sure there's data that, in some area or other, would prove me "wrong". But so much of it is down to cultural and behavioural issues, as well as cycling infrastructure and road quality, that I don't think it's valid to just forklift figures from one area and say, well, if everybody in Cambridge cycled we'd see X% fewer injuries from collisions on our roads. Unless other factors are taken into account it's very faulty reasoning.

[0] On the road conditions point, you're much more vulnerable on a bike than you would be in a car. If you're a driver and you hit a big pothole, you might damage your car, but you'll probably be OK. If you do the same on a bike you are much more likely to fall off and injure yourself.

[scott_w]

> What I'm contending against is not cycling as a mode of transport, but the assumption that with greater adoption of cycling comes greater safety.

The Netherlands has a massive cycling uptake and has some of the safest roads in Europe. What you say simply doesn’t hold water. Cyclists are simply not killing in the numbers that car drivers are.

[bartread]

Yeah, but The Netherlands isn't Cambridge, UK.

For one, The Netherlands has great cycling infrastructure, at least places where I've been: Cambridge, UK doesn't.

Again, from what I've seen, cyclists in The Netherlands tend to behave quite a bit better than they do here in the UK (drivers too, for that matter).

Moreover, what condition is the infrastructure in? I don't know about The Netherlands but I can tell you that in Cambridge, UK, it's littered with potholes, and often to some extent multi-modal.

You can't just forklift an insight about cycling in The Netherlands and expect things to work the same somewhere else without making a whole load of stuff happen beyond just encouraging lots more people to cycle if you want to actually make it safer. In Cambridge, UK, we need both solid investment and cultural change (both cyclists and, yes, motorists too) for cycling to become a safer option.

Am I being clear enough for you now?

[Xylakant]

Cyclists behaving better in the Netherlands than in Cambridge is likely true, but at the same time a statistical bias: In places with bad road conditions, only the die-hards cycle. Those tend to contain a larger share of assertive or aggressive cyclists. Bad road conditions also force cyclists into pedestrian spaces, onto pavements etc. I can observe that here in Berlin as well - places with good infrastructure see little to no conflict, but there are some spaces with frankly brain-dead planning where almost every cyclist cuts through the pedestrian space.

And that‘s where the Netherlands differ: Everyone cycles. You get a better cross-section of the population, kids, families. The infrastructure is much better, all around. It’s designed to reduce conflicts. And it‘s very likely that you‘d see similar effects in Cambridge as well. Build safe infrastructure and the normal people will show up.

[scott_w]

That’s partially true but you said “cycling isn’t safer” when the available evidence is that it is. Even in the UK, you’re more likely to be killed on the pavement by a car than by a bike. Say what you like about numbers but cars aren’t supposed to be there. That fact alone should tell you something about the difference in danger.

[planede]

I'm also in Cambridge. Many car drivers are also dickheads, at least they think that using the indicator is optional when leaving a roundabout. This mostly annoys me when I'm on foot and try to cross the street near a roundabout. I found traffic in Cambridge to be very hostile to pedestrians.

[bartread]

> Many car drivers are also dickheads

Yes.

I know.

If you actually read what I said carefully you'll note that I said some portion of the population: a very general statement which is inclusive of both cyclists and motorists. I am an equal opportunities disparager.

[pclmulqdq]

People who dick around like that in a car find themselves in jail really quickly. People who do it on a bike wave self-righteously at the police while flagrantly violating the law, and get away with it.

[Lio]

Bollocks they do. People dick about in cars ALL the time. YouTube is full of people acting like knobheads in cars and getting away with it.

I know Cambridge really well and I know people that regularly race their cars on the A14 at night.

Do you really think all the people buying tuning kits are doing so because they like sticking to the speed limit?

When it comes to obeying traffic lights you won't be waiting long to see cars tailgating through amber. That happens every time.

Finally I'd point to the number of drivers still on the road with more than 12 points on their licence. They just plead extenuating circumstances in court and get away with it. They almost never find themselves in gaol. The real kicker is that those that do end up in prison on a Dangerous Driving charge never permanently loose their licenses.

[scott_w]

I watched a car drive straight into someone yesterday. The police refused to come out.

I don’t see how that squares with your statement at all.

[Xylakant]

I have video proof of a car ramming me when pushing into my lane. Police declined to investigate because there “no proof of deliberate action.”

[pclmulqdq]

That's because an accident and a traffic violation are different. Minor accidents are usually handled without police intervention, and this is by design.

[scott_w]

See my other comment: he pulled out without looking because he was in the middle of cutting up other road users (me in this case). That’s driving without due care and attention which is a traffic violation in the U.K.

The police don’t care. What mechanism will put him in jail?

[pclmulqdq]

"Driving without due care and attention" sounds like a statute that has a much more specific interpretation than you think, and the police probably aren't the ones who misinterpreted that here. "Careless driving" and "reckless driving" are against the law in many states in the US, but both actually have very specific interpretations that are not entirely contained in the text of the statute. This is the joy of living in a common law country.

Things like running red lights, not stopping at stop signs, and speeding are much easier for laypeople to judge, and it sounds like none of that was happening here.

[scott_w]

So just to be clear “drivers who fuck around go to jail” is not true. But it’s cyclists that are the problem in this discussion.

[Nextgrid]

Cars are a mortal danger to non-car users (pedestrians, (motor?)cyclists), but at city speeds, they wouldn't be a mortal danger for other car users.

[Avshalom]

https://jalopnik.com/charges-dropped-against-driver-who-open...

[Xylakant]

These people killed by a dickhead driver would probably disagree https://slate.com/business/2023/03/dc-car-crash-tickets-rock...